[RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-07

[[e-mail]]

Hi Yingzhen,

Thank you for addressing the sec comment. I trust that you have also fixed the content mismatch between the module and the parent registry points.

Thank you also for confirming that there are no such IANA considerations. The narrative text in 9352 does not change the rules set in 8491.

I consider that the last comment is still valid and not addressed. Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

De : Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>
Envoyé : jeudi 6 juin 2024 01:05
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>
Cc : Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>; Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Last Call <[e-mail]>; mpls <[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-07

Hi Med,

You're right, it is not explicitly stated in the IANA consideration section. However you can find "This document only defines one type of MSD: Base MPLS Imposition. " in the abstract of RFC 8491.

And the following text is at the beginning of section 4 in RFC 9352 that defines the SRH MSDs:
"

[RFC8491<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9352.html#RFC8491>] defines the means to advertise node-/link-specific values for MSDs of various types. Node MSDs are advertised in a sub-TLV of the Router Capability TLV [RFC7981<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9352.html#RFC7981>] Link MSDs are advertised in a sub-TLV of TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223.¶<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9352.html#section-4-1>

This document defines the relevant SRv6 MSDs and requests MSD type assignments in the "IGP MSD-Types" registry created by [RFC8491<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9352.html#RFC8491>]
"
I've updated the security consideration in version -09. Please let us know whether this addressed your comments.

Thanks,
Yingzhen



On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:27 AM <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Re-,

I actually checked that before making the comment. There is no such requirement for new requests in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8491.html#section-6.

May be I’m not looking in the right place?!

I would appreciate if you can point me to where I can find this requirement: “the document that defines the new entry should state what the MSD is for”

Cheers,
Med

De : Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Envoyé : mercredi 5 juin 2024 18:02
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc : Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Last Call <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Objet : [RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-07


Hi Med,

When a new entry is added to the "IGP MSD-Type" registry, the document that defines the new entry should state what the MSD is for.

I'll update the security consideration.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 7:06 AM <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Acee,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med



Orange Restricted
De : Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Envoyé : mercredi 5 juin 2024 15:35
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc : Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Last Call <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; mpls <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Objet : Re: [RTG-DIR]Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-07


Hi Med,

See inline.

On Jun 5, 2024, at 04:16, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Yingzhen,

Thanks for taking care of this. The new version looks better.

Still, I don’t see how the hierarchical identity structure can be automatically inferred from the current flat registry structure. I’m afraid that the instructions in the 3rd para of 6.2 are not sufficient as I don’t think that we can trust the presence of SRH or some magic words in the description to decide which identity to use, and more generally if “a new data plane” is used.

Both the description and references listed in the IANA module diverge from the actual content of the registry. I would avoid that. Please refer to this clarification in the 8407bis (see the last sentence, in particular):

   The content of these registries are usually available using various
   formats (e.g., plain text, XML).  However, there were some confusion
   in the past about whether the content of some registries is dependent
   on a specific representation format.  For example, Section 5 of
   [RFC8892] was published to clarify that MIB and YANG modules are
   merely additional formats in which the "Interface Types (ifType)" and
   "Tunnel Types (tunnelType)" registries are available.  The MIB
   [RFC2863] and YANG modules [RFC7224][RFC8675] are not separate
   registries, and the same values are always present in all formats of
   the same registry.

I disagree. The fact that we have a hierarchy of identities wouldn’t confuse anyone. They are all part of the
iana-msd-types.yang model and all have “msd-base” as the root identity. We are rejecting this rather
 subjective comment.

[Med] Hmm…this is not subjective :-) Let’s consider that I registered a new entry in Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Parameters (iana.org)<https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml>

115
My own type
[MyREF<https://www.iana.org/go/rfc8491>]

How IANA will follow the following guidance? How IANA will know this is about an existing “data plane” or a new one? How it will decide to mirror it using existing one msd-base or msd-base-srh? How to infer a data plane from a registration? Etc.

   The identities defined in the iana-msd-types YANG module are
   organized hierarchically based on the data plane.  In this initial
   version, only MPLS and SRv6 data planes are supported, hence "msd-
   base-mpls" and "msd-base-srh" are defined.  When a new data plane is
   added to the "IGP MSD-Types" registry, a new "identity" statement
   should be added to the "iana-msd-types" YANG module.  The name of the
   "identity" is the prefix "msd-base-" plus a lower-case version of the
   data plane name .  The identity statement should have the following
   sub-statements defined:


If you want to suggest further text to explain this, we’ll consider inclusion.

Some other misc. comments:

(1) “lower-case version of the data plane name”: you may also indicate that the space is replaced with “-“, not trimmed.

(2)    "description":  Replicates the description from the registry.

I guess you meant replicate the “name” from the registry. There is no description in the IGP MSD Type reg.

(3)

OLD:
      name: iana-msd-types
      namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-msd-types
      prefix: iana-msd-types
      reference: RFC XXXX

      name: ietf-mpls-msd
      namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-mpls-msd
      prefix: mpls-msd
     reference: RFC XXXX

NEW:
      name: iana-msd-types
      namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-msd-types
      prefix: iana-msd-types
      maintained by IANA? Y
      reference: RFC XXXX

      name: ietf-mpls-msd
      namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-mpls-msd
      prefix: mpls-msd
      maintained by IANA? N
     reference: RFC XXXX

(4) the security section does not follow the template + does not cover the IANA module. Please refer tohttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-11#name-security-considerations-sect.

The iana-msd-types.yang modules doesn’t include any data leafs so there are no associated security considerations. We could state this.
We’ll check the latest template in the draft.

[Med] There is a para in the template for that as well.

Thanks,
Acee

Cheers,
Med

De : Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Envoyé : mercredi 5 juin 2024 07:55
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc : Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: [RTG-DIR]Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-07

Hi Mohamed,

Thanks for the review and pointer. I've uploaded version -08 to address your comments, please review and let me know your comments, especially about the hierarchical identities.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 12:18 AM <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi all,

In addition to the comments raised by Dhruv, the authors may look at the guidance athttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-11#name-iana-maintained-modules for the required details for IANA-maintained modules.

## Lack of the details to maintain the module

There is currently no guidance in draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang about how the module will be maintained. For example, given that there is no label but only a description field in the authoritative IANA registry, the doc should explain how names will be echoed in the module.

## Mirror the content of the authoritative registry

The content of the IANA module does not mirror the details in the registry. For example, there are many refs that are listed in draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang, but those are not present in the parent registry.

## Hierarchy

The IANA module defines this hierarchy, while there is no such hierarchy in the IANA registry. I understand that the authors want to structure the types, but is this really required here? Absent guidance about how new entries will be echoed from the registry, I don't think this structure is easily maintainable. Please keep in mind that registrants of new types are not even aware that an IANA-maintained module exists. So, they cannot be involved in the process of maintaining the module.

==
     identity msd-base-srh {
       base msd-base;
       description
         "Identity for MSD types for Segment Routing Header (SRH).";
     }

     identity msd-srh-max-sl {
       base msd-base-srh;
       description
         "The Maximum Segment Left MSD type.";
       reference
         "RFC 9352: IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing
                    over the IPv6 Data Plane";
     }

     identity msd-srh-max-end-pop {
       base msd-base-srh;
       description
         "The Maximum End Pop MSD Type.";
       reference
         "RFC 9352: IS-IS Extensions to Support Segment Routing
                    over the IPv6 Data Plane";
     }
==

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Envoyé : lundi 3 juin 2024 20:06
> À : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Objet : [RTG-DIR]Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-msd-
> yang-07
>
>
> Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this
> draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or
> routing-related drafts as they pass through the IETF last call
> and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of
> the review is to assist the Routing ADs. For more information
> about the Routing Directorate, please see
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%252>
> Fwiki.ietf.org<http://fwiki.ietf.org/>%2Fen%2Fgroup%2Frtg%2FRtgDir&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed
> .boucadair%40orange.com<http://40orange.com/>%7C6ecf264db0bb43052c3b08dc83f8121b%7C90c7
> a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638530348673738183%7CUnkno
> wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1h
> aWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=vfo%2F%2BxP9zc3YIrI1b9RjmRl
> XL3MicMrirSECkDHfM3c%3D&reserved=0
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing
> ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with
> any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to
> resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang-07
> Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
> Review Date: 2024-06-03
> IETF LC End Date: 2024-06-04
> Intended Status: Proposed Standard
>
> ## Summary:
>
> * I have some minor concerns about this document that I think
> should be resolved before publication.
>
> ## Comment:
>
> * This draft defines 2 YANG models one is IANA-maintained to
> mirror the msd-type registry and the other is augmenting base
> MPLS to include MSD values.
>
> ### Major Issues:
>
> - Please remove the BCP14 boilerplate (Section 1.1) as you are
> not using any of those keywords. Also, remove from the ietf-mpls-
> msd YANG model.
>
> - You should explicitly state that this is an initial version of
> "iana-msd-types" YANG model - "This document defines the initial
> version of the IANA-maintained 'iana-msd-types' YANG module."
>
> ### Minor Issues:
>
> - Title: Please change to "A YANG Data Model for MPLS Maximum
> Segment Identifier (SID) Depth (MSD)". Also, update the reference
> in the YANG model around RFC XXXX.
>
> - The abstract suggests that only one YANG model is defined in
> this I-D.
> Consider rephrasing or adding some hints about the IANA model as
> well.
>
> - Section 1, "YANG [RFC7950] is a data definition language.."; I
> suggest changing it to data modeling as that is the term used in
> the referenced RFC.
>
> - Section 1, I am unsure about the text "The augmentation defined
> in this document requires support..."; isn't it obvious that one
> needs to support the model one is augmenting...
>
> - Section 4, please add this text in the description inside the
> YANG module - "This YANG module is maintained by IANA and
> reflects the 'IGP MSD-Types'
> registry."
>
> - identity msd-erld, should also have a reference to RFC9088.
>
> - In "ietf-mpls-msd", please remove the reference "RFC XXXX: A
> YANG Data Model for MPLS MSD." immediately after the module
> description. The revision statement is the correct place to have
> this reference.
>
> - leaf msd-value should also include text for "0 represents the
> lack of ability to support a SID stack of any depth".
>
> - I can not parse "A type of Node MSD is the smallest same type
> link MSD supported by the node.";"
>
> - RFC8340 should be normatively referenced.
>
> ### Nits:
>
> - s/(MSD) Types as the IANA the IGP MSD-Types registry/(MSD)
> Types as per the IANA IGP MSD-Types registry/
>
> - s/which itself augments [RFC8349]/which itself augments routing
> RIB data model [RFC8349]/
>
> - s/IANA maintained module/IANA-maintained module/
>
> - s/This module will be maintained by IANA if more MSD types are
> added to the registry./This module will be maintained by IANA and
> updated if and when there is any change in the registry./
>
> - s/and it is to provide support of different types of MSDs in
> MPLS data plane./and it provides support for different types of
> MSDs in the MPLS data plane./
>
> - s/read-only data decided by/read-only data as per/
>
> - Section 4, expand SID on first use in the YANG model.
>
> Thanks,
> Dhruv
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.